Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study

Oystein

Senior Member
About 10 hours ago, AE911T put this on their Facebook page:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/250378459429645/


At the bottom of the post I see a video preview and this text (preceded by a symbol of a video camera): "Tomorrow at 21:00".
I am a little confused now - has there been a presentation already? Will it be held tomorrow? I received an AE newsletter an hour before this Facebook post that said that the release of the final report is "now" only 2 days away - so tomorrow (Thursday), it seems.

At any rate, I see nothing new, especially no final report to download, either at https://www.ae911truth.org/ or the UAF project page http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

I find it mildly curious that AE911Truth would direct people to their website for download and not the universities, and also that not Hulsey but an AE man gets to present it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I find it mildly curious that AE911Truth would direct people to their website for download and not the universities, and also that not Hulsey but an AE man gets to present it.
The University is likely shut down for the year. Which technically shouldn't effect uploading a paper, but "no crowds" due to coronavirus and Hulsey is pretty old..so I can see him not doing a presentation.
 

econ41

Senior Member
The University is likely shut down for the year. Which technically shouldn't effect uploading a paper, but "no crowds" due to coronavirus and Hulsey is pretty old..so I can see him not doing a presentation.
It could also be a form of protection. An old man who has given years of faithful uncontroversial service [then does this]. So why not let him fade away from the scene and at the same time take the spotlight off the UAF so it's culpabilty is not fully exposed. Bottom line "Hope the whole sad affair gets forgotten."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oystein

Senior Member
Seeing that they said in a previous news article the other day that they would have to change their plans around the release of the report because of the Covid crisis, I think deirdre more likely is closer to the mark:
Perhaps "presentations" includes anything in Fairbanks.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A rather significant change here, where they change the formula used to calculate K, changing it from 6,622 lbs/inch to just 552 !!

Metabunk 2020-03-25 11-53-41.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They have added the text "The movement shown is highly amplified for clarity. The actual scale of the displacements are presented to the right." to all the "falling over" type images, like:
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-02-55.jpg

Closeup of that scale:
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-03-17.jpg

E+3 means time 10^3, or times 1000. So the green there is around 1500 inches. Or 125 feet. That seems to be how much the building has been displaced in the "highly amplified" image. This suggests it's not highly amplified.

They mention it again here. Seemingly thinking it's actually just inches.
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-30-25.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The old section 4.5 seems to have been totally removed.
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-10-57.jpg

Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-10-13.jpg

The removed text:
Which reduces their analysis findings:
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-18-48.jpg

As I remember the failure of all the core columns was a favorite hypothesis of Tony Szamboti
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They appear to have responded to the criticism of their fake "dynamic analysis" by re-labling it "dynamic time history finite element analysis"

This is a new (short) section:
This kind of feels like a glossing over, but with the same result. The "dynamic analysis" is no such thing. "Time History Analysis" is really another term for nonlinear dynamic analysis.
http://www.ijscer.com/uploadfile/2015/0429/20150429075958589.pdf

They say:
Which seems nonsensical. The mass of individual structure elements does not change. Gravity does not change.

What does change? Velocity, yes, but also connections, contact, and collisions - none of which seem to have been modeled.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Anybody else missing their comments?
I didn't submit directly. But I get a couple of mentions:
And rather indirectly:
 

Trojan

New Member
So the two peer reviewers listed are either an acquaintance of Tony Szamboti or an acquaintance of Steven Jones (both having published on 9/11). What happened to impartial peer review?
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I'm also attaching for everyone's ease of reference a word document comparison between the two reports (draft and final) that I prepared with Change-Pro (the professional document comparison software I use in my legal practice). This shows more clearly which graphics were altered, added or removed, and will let people copy and paste into their comments here any revisions of interest.
 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Szuladzinski is co-author of a paper with Szamoboti and Jones with is just a meaningless critique of the Bazant strawman.
https://metabunk.org/attachments/10....40038/?hash=d71480de88b60db9c9dc60a8423ad7e2
And Korol is a co-author with them on the Europhysics News article:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
Which also goes after Bazant.

So both seem to be firmly in the 9/11 truth camp.
 

Attachments

Oystein

Senior Member
Attached is my comments on the Draft Report which I had mailed to publiccomment@ae911truth.org - but they are not included in the "Public Comments" that were published yesterday: https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments.pdf

I emailed them to Hulsey directly yesterday. No response yet.

(This PDF contains one edit on the first page: I deleted my real name and contact info under "Prepared by:" and substituted with merely "[Oystein]", and also the file name has "Oy" in place of my real initials)
 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In AE911's presentation of the final report:
Source: https://youtu.be/KOooHlaA0pE?t=1745


Angle shows the ludricous tipping over animation:
Metabunk 2020-03-26 15-24-40.jpg

And says "this would be what that looks like", as the building goes on to do this:

Which he shows as if that's a perfectly normal-looking collapse of a tall building.
Metabunk 2020-03-26 15-30-01.jpg


Yes in the final report, as I noted above, they take pains to downplay how silly this looks by saying:
But if we look in the report for the static analysis they base this animation on, we have figure 4.14 (Final)
Metabunk 2020-03-26 15-35-36.jpg

And again the scale:

E+3, so x1,000, so displacements of 1,600 inches. Which is what is shown.

So we've got Angle saying "this is what that looks like", and we've got the report saying that's what the numbers are, and then we've got the report also say it's just a few inches.

They seem to have no idea at all what is going on. Perhaps the problem here is that old simulations were done years ago by Zhili Quan, and the newer writers (and Angle) don't fully understand them.

So what are AE911 telling us? That the building would tip over a little or a lot in the NIST scenario? Obviously the tipping over a lot, as described, is physically impossible - the result of a misapplication of static analysis to a dynamic situation. And if it's just tipping over a little, well then, that's what actually happened that day. Metabunk 2020-03-26 16-09-00.jpg
 

Attachments

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I find much of their reasoning and assumptions hard to accept. If the entire building was moving down... it means that everything which held it up was no longer doing that. Their assertions is that the only way to accomplish this is CD of all the columns over 8 stories (to account for the FF movement).

However if the columns are displaced and the axial load paths interrupted...they become non performing... as if the column is no longer there.

While NIST didn't go there... and focused on an initiating event on floor 12-13... it seems that the explanation which matches observations is more like:

First event was in the NE quadrant which led to a complete interior collapse of that quadrant.
The first even caused the massive transfers on floors 5-7 to collapse and with that pull or push columns to the west in the core so that they were DISPLACED and non performing. When the core columns were non performing... there would be no more interior columns and the interior floor plates would collapse. So the east quadrant collapse led to a rapid progression of displacement/failures of the interior (core) columns from east to west (and accounts for the timing of the dropping of the roof structures) hollowing out the building.

But could the perimeter moment frame stand with the entire building hollowed out by the complete interior collapse? Not likely. The material from the interior collapse would almost certainly bulge outward... and in so doing exert lateral outward forces on the lower perimeter columns which supported the moment frame which began on floor 8. The moment frame had 57 columns on its four sides. But below it the support was reduced using "transfers" to only 26 columns. If these, 26 became non performing... the perimeter moment frame would collapse at essentially FF. This accounts for the "motion" and appearance of the collapse.

The north side had only 5 columns plus the shared corner columns
The east side had only 2 columns plus the shared corner columns
The west side had only 4 columns plus the shared corner columns
The south side had only 10 columns plus the shared corner columns

It is certainly plausible that a local failure in the NE quadrant kicked off the chain reaction. This could have been at the location NIST modeled. It also could have been lower or higher up... but it would have to kick off the progressive runaway collapse of the transfers on floors 5-7 to hollow out the interior.

And yes the building's perimeter would come pretty much straight down.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Jaytje

New Member
Looking at the comments on the final report from Hulsey, its obvious that the whole WTC7 collapse is a non-issue nowadays with engineers and architects. I wonder if truthers are going to complain about the fact that this was all paid for by AE911 so a little biased towards [the AE911 position], or about the collapse videos, which they seemed eager to do with the NIST collapse videos. I guess we won't see any comparison videos from that side coming anytime soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oystein

Senior Member
I just found that, at the AE911Truth website, they updated the PDF document with all the Public Comments, to now include my comments (pages 13-25):
https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments-Updated.pdf
(Also attached)

The UAF-INE still links the old file name, which misses the "-Updated" bit and produces an Error 404:
https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments.pdf

I had inquired about this via email to both Hulsey and the Director of the INE a month ago. The Director responded the same day; Hulsey took almost 4 weeks to reply - asking about my forensic engineering and fire protection engineering credentials and the names of my collaborators, so he would know how to respond to my comments :D
 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hulsey took almost 4 weeks to reply - asking about my forensic engineering and fire protection engineering credentials and the names of my collaborators, so he would know how to respond to my comments
He never replied to me.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Thanks for posting this and your detailed comment you submitted. I skimmed this and I am not a structural engineer, but an architect. I DO appreciate the logic of your comments. My sense is that Hulsey report amounts to sound and fury and signifies nothing.

One thing that has struck me about the truth guys obsessing over free fall is that that there was a considerable period before the exterior appears to drop at FF and the first observations of failures indicated by the collapsing roof structures. It is worth considering that there was a collapse of the interior in this period which led the the collapse of the axial support of the exterior moment frame and attached curtain wall. It was a one two three... one -the interior collapse two the collapsed debris bugles and destroys the axial support from grade to floor 8 (+/-108' above grade. then three... the facade without support collapse at FF from floor 8. The former LED to the later because the fallen debris "bulged" outward undermining the columns. FF is hardly mysterious and very much expected if the axial support of the moment frame is destroyed. AND... how could it not be destroyed if the entire interior of the building collapsed bulged outward from ground to floor 8? The facade/exterior structure below flr 8 and above were very different. This was a natural "fracture" location.

And of of course as you note how absurd to not consider all the weakening that was going on over multiple floors throughout the portion of the foot print where the fires raged. It's absurd to think one node failure unzipped the entire building as much as it is to think that many nodes failed simultaneously causing it to collapse as we saw. High rise buildings are designed such that one column/node failure does not collapse a building because loads can be redistributed and there is engineered in to the design excess capacity.

When there would be a progression of failures of nodes it would take some time... it would not be a simultaneous event. I believe NIST did not model this exactly but there sim does show the concept of progression. It may be too complex to model the collapse we witnessed without more data. But this is beyond my pay grade.

Nice work Oy! I predict you will not receive a satisfactory response.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
He never replied to me.
I think it helped that I also emailed the Director of the Institute of Northern Engineering at the engineering college of the UAF, Dr. David Barnes, who agreed to inquire with Hulsey about the whereabouts of my comments - although he disclaimed competence in the matter, not being a structural engineer.

...
Nice work Oy! I predict you will not receive a satisfactory response.
Thanks!
Hulsey's response was bellicose and peppered with seeds of excuses to dismiss my comments based on authority and credentials to avoid facing their substance. I made the same experience with Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, Tony Szamboti... currently, Wayne Coste is trying that ploy on Facebook.

I even sense a conspiracy: That Hulsey already has been advised by his AE911Truth handlers about who I am (little doubt someone there, certainly Tony, knows my real name and that I am Oystein), and that he shares my communications with them, to coordinate a response. So far the strategy has been to ignore me. This may have stopped because of my getting Dr. Barnes involved.

Perhaps a strategy could be to find an interested freelance journalist with a chance of placing an article about this UAF scandal on major media. Just to get the attention of UAF's and INE's leadership.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
vooke ATSB Final Report on #MH370 Flight MH370 1
Josh Heuer Final Sandy Hook Report Released. Sandy Hook 30
Steve Bucky Rogers: Another anti-NWO domestic terrorist caught before the final act. Conspiracy Theories 6
Mick West "Advanced Aerial Threats" In Report on US Congress' Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2021 UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 5
Mendel The E-PAI report on the Origins of COVID-19 Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Rico "Leaked" Five Eyes Intelligence Report Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 31
Mick West Hulsey UAF report DATA RELEASE: analysis thread 9/11 29
Mick West Hulsey Report: Columns in Tension and Impossible Fulcrums 9/11 0
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Missing from Bureau of Transportation Departure Report 9/11 12
Mick West Debunked: Corbett Report Targeted by Google/Youtube Conspiracy Theories 37
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
MikeC Dutch release draft report to involved parties Flight MH17 0
Eyes_Open Hi Everyone - General Discussion 1
Steve Jeff Rense People Debunked 11
Qualiall Malaysian Transport Ministry's first-year report (released March 8th 2015) Flight MH370 4
D RF humaid convoy to Donbass unloaded weapons and ammo 30th Nov 2014 General Discussion 0
deirdre Searchable State Police Report and OFFICIAL reports/press releases Sandy Hook 3
Mick West MH370 Preliminary Report Released - Full Text and Files Flight MH370 186
WeedWhacker MH370: Report of Jet flying over Maldives Island Kudahuvadhoo Flight MH370 86
Critical Thinker Report: New ozone-destroying chemicals found in atmosphere General Discussion 5
Mick West Debunked: Government Stockpiling Unusual Amounts of Ammo [by Tom Coburn's GAO Report] Conspiracy Theories 63
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Tim TheToolman Coles Debunked: Infowars: "Latest Climate Report Admits Chemtrails Exist" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: RFID "Chippie" Mascot, and all other National Report stories Conspiracy Theories 0
gerrycan Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered 9/11 841
Mick West Leaked Osama bin Laden Abbottabad Commission report on Al Jazeera - Debunks Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 95
Kevin45345 Climate change deniers: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere General Discussion 2
Joe FBI report: Florida family had ties to people linked to 9/11 attacks 9/11 0
A.G. "EU Conference on Weather Modification and Geo-Engineering..." Contrails and Chemtrails 29
Mick West BBC Report: Body of student falsely accused of Boston attacks possibly found Boston Marathon Bombings 7
MikeC Latest Boeing ETOPS report Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Met Watch To Be Debunked: September 2012 Jobs Report Manipulated Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West What is Hulsey's Forensic Structural Engineering Experience? 9/11 15
Related Articles



































Related Articles

Top